State takeovers of struggling school districts have always been controversial, and more states are getting out of the business of directly running local schools. But in Camden, New Jersey, the state takeover of the city’s schools shows that not everyone is ready to abandon this vestige of the education reform movement.
ImpactED, an evaluation and research center at the University of Pennsylvania, recently released a report finding that Camden public school students in grades three-to-eight have narrowed the proficiency gap in both math and reading since the 2014-15 school year, when the Camden City School District was taken over by the state of New Jersey under then-Governor Chris Christie.
The report also makes mention that since 2014, student proficiency in both math and reading has nearly doubled.
The lion’s share of the credit belongs to the students as well as the educators.
This is good news and proof of what believers in Camden students already know: our students are intelligent, talented, and skilled. The lion’s share of the credit belongs to the students as well as the educators. Yet local politicians cite the intervention by the state of New Jersey as a reason for the reported success.
That claim is debatable.
Earlier this year, the New Jersey Policy Perspective (NJPP) released a report finding that state intervention, in fact, did not improve Camden City student test scores.
While ImpactED focused on the improvement of student scores, NJPP compared Camden City student scores pre- and post-state intervention with other underfunded school districts, districts (some previously) under state intervention (Jersey City, Newark, and Paterson) and similar districts located in high poverty areas.
NJPP’s research showed that third, fourth, and eighth grade Camden City students performed worst amongst these comparison groups in both math and reading. While the NJPP report does show that scores improved from 2014-15 to 2018-19 (the last testing year), student scores in third and fourth grades were already trending upward prior to state intervention.
Also, the spike in student scores, specifically in eighth and eleventh grades, wasn’t limited to Camden City students, according to the NJPP report. The comparison groups, most of which were not subject to state intervention, experienced similar spikes.
Again, local politicians argue that, without the intervention by the state, Camden City students may have performed worse than their reported scores. Yet the impact of state intervention on student performance is actually negative. Even the ImpactED researchers said its report is exclusively descriptive rather than causal—the study’s most notable limitation.
While the role of state intervention in increasing students’ test scores is uncertain, one impact of the takeover in Camden is abundantly clear: the transferring of decision-making on the education of Black and brown children from local community members to the state, where Black and brown people are in the minority.
State interventions are more likely to happen, specifically, in predominantly Black school districts.
It’s perhaps unsurprising that most state takeovers happen in communities of color. State interventions—which result in dissolving the school board and replacing the superintendent with a state monitor appointed by the governor—are more likely to happen, specifically, in predominantly Black school districts.
And that is exactly what happened in Camden.
The school board was dissolved and replaced with an advisory board that, until only recently, was appointed by the mayor. Though Camden currently has a superintendent, any superintendent chosen requires approval from the governor because the district is still under state control.
According to Rutgers University professor Domingo Morel, author of Takeover: Race, Education, and American Democracy, state interventions—including the one in Camden—often accomplish their intended purpose, serving as a political power play by the state to control the political and economic destiny of districts in traditionally Democratic cities led by Black and brown people.
While justification for such a power move by the state is often cloaked in language of rescuing children, another likely explanation for taking over Camden, Morel suggests, is in retaliation for the court-ordered redistribution of public monies out of suburban schools into urban schools. In a series of rulings beginning in 1985, known as the Abbott Decisions, the New Jersey Supreme Court mandated that state funding for impoverished school districts be equal to wealthier school districts.
Only when the redistribution of wealth was in the hands of Black and brown political and educational officials and advocates, Morel suggests, did New Jersey governors become interested in running local school districts, starting with the takeover of the Jersey City School District in 1989.
State intervention in Camden has resulted in the stripping away of autonomy for Black and brown families. In addition, the Urban Hope Act legislation has facilitated public school closures in Camden with increased charter school openings and a reduction of Black teachers.
In general, the research on the effectiveness of state takeovers is mixed. While the ImpactED report shows student progress in Camden, the NJPP report cautions to not jump to conclusions about how state intervention is playing a role in that progress.
Black and brown children continue to struggle because of state intervention, and despite the ImpactED report’s conclusions, we shouldn’t jump to the assumption that state intervention is a viable solution.